Before we get into the specific matchups and such, I just want to say that the biggest surprise to me thus far is Victoria's 6th seed. In spite of Hedberg's spotty draft attendance record, I think he assembled a very good team. There are a number of strong teams in the Robson, but suffice it to say, I think Victoria deserved better than a 6 seed.
I have to agree with you on that one. It's tough for both GMs as I thought they were two of the strongest teams in the division.
Would it be possible to have some kind of statistical quirks and facts about the voting... Not a complete divulgation, just a few things that might be interesting, a bit like you do for the HOH Top-100 voting when a round starts?
Would it be possible to have some kind of statistical quirks and facts about the voting... Not a complete divulgation, just a few things that might be interesting, a bit like you do for the HOH Top-100 voting when a round starts?
I'm not sure what the exact rules are, but if I'm allowed I can post up a complete set of voting results. I can post up a complete voting record or just the total points for each team.
I'm not sure what the exact rules are, but if I'm allowed I can post up a complete set of voting results. I can post up a complete voting record or just the total points for each team.
I think that people have generally been against that in the past.
I'm not sure what the exact rules are, but if I'm allowed I can post up a complete set of voting results. I can post up a complete voting record or just the total points for each team.
I'm against posting the complete sets as well.
But BM came up with interesting things, like how many teams had a first place, the margin between key ranks (namely 1st, 2nd and, well, last), and so on...
I think that people have generally been against that in the past.
In that case, unless the consensus is that this should change I'm afraid it would be improper of me to reveal any voting tallies or tidbits. I do that in the Top 100 only because ultimately the entire aggregate list and all voters voting records will become public when the list is complete.
In that case, unless the consensus is that this should change I'm afraid it would be improper of me to reveal any voting tallies or tidbits. I do that in the Top 100 only because ultimately the entire aggregate list and all voters voting records will become public when the list is complete.
Don't say who voted for what team at what spot, just a total amount of overall points would be nice. Along with who got how many 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place etc. votes, if possible. That'd be great, many thanks if you would do that FF.
In that case, unless the consensus is that this should change I'm afraid it would be improper of me to reveal any voting tallies or tidbits. I do that in the Top 100 only because ultimately the entire aggregate list and all voters voting records will become public when the list is complete.
This was the extent of the information divulged last draft (as far as I can tell):
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67
By ranking vote totals.
1 Aurora
2 New Jersey
3 Canadiens
4 Detroit
5 Nanaimo
6 Oakland
7 Halifax
8 Victoria
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67
The gap from 1st to 5th in the Cherry was bigger than the gap from 1st to 7th in the Hewitt. The gap between 1st and 3rd was about the same as a couple of other divisions, but the gap from 2nd to 3rd was much bigger. Aurora got more 1st place votes than any other team, and NJ got more 2nd place votes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67
I don't want to get into too much detail about the voting, but Guelph recieved 1 more 1st place vote than NJ and Flin Flon.
I'm ok with posting the voting totals but I'd definitely understand if people were against it.
I can't imagine why we would be? Isn't that just the equivilant of regular season stats? Who was the "Presidents Trophy" winner. Who had the biggest margin, etc.
I can't imagine why we would be? Isn't that just the equivilant of regular season stats? Who was the "Presidents Trophy" winner. Who had the biggest margin, etc.
Exactly. Whoever each GM voted for at each spot still remains confidential, so I don't see a problem with it.
I guess it could influence people (i.e. Team A had 112 points while Team B only had 52) in their voting decisions.
Like I said though I'm ok with it being an open process.
Agreed with mullin again...the seeds system does that enough already.
But I definitely see what you mean. In a 1 vs 8 series, where the final result is 100pts for the top seed vs 90pts for the #8 vs 150 and 40 respectively, I think I might not even consider voting for the upset in the latter, while I'd think about the upset in the first situation.
I know this is my first ATD, but I'd suspect one reason for not displaying complete voting totals is that new GMs (who generally finish at the bottom, or near it) may get discouraged from participating further if , for example, they see 2/3 of the voters ranked them last. In any case, I'll give it until tomorrow to see what the consensus is and if there are no major objections I'll post up the point totals, but not the detailed voting records (i.e. how many 1st/2nd/3rd/etc. votes each team got).
Individual voter ballots will forever be known only to myself, so don't bother asking.
I don't think (and I certainly hope) point totals would affect anyone's judgement. I think everyone here can by analytical of a series (the matchups, etc) enough to determine their own opinion.
The difference between best and worse gets narrower with every iteration.
Before we get into the specific matchups and such, I just want to say that the biggest surprise to me thus far is Victoria's 6th seed. In spite of Hedberg's spotty draft attendance record, I think he assembled a very good team. There are a number of strong teams in the Robson, but suffice it to say, I think Victoria deserved better than a 6 seed.
I'm partial to Victoria and like the team a lot, very solid defense and great depth up front but there were a lot of good teams in the Robson division, it probably gave me the hardest time of all of them. I docked Victoria in the regular season standings mainly due to goaltending (up against the likes of Roy, Plante, Durnan, etc.) but of course that won't be a problem in the playoffs, I could see them making a nice run with so many big game players.
